Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Can't help saying rubbish.. sorry..
I made a swirl filter in moments, once the inlet and outlets were set..

It is super simple, and uses elbows to direct flow around the inside wall.

As there is a second identical unit, I can genuinely see what is missed by tye first and near nothing get out, so I find it hard to understand the concerns..
..
.

So you are arguing that a swirl filter is better because you need two of them in series to get a good result?

No.. not at all.. one does the job..

I happened to have two barrels and just made them as series-swirls..
The second one shows what got past the first and that is stuff all..

So if capturing 99% of solids in one 60L barrel is not a good start, then I wonder what an equivalent RFF would stop..

Sorry, but I am just saying that a simple swirl filter can be just soooo easy to make and if it captures 99% of solids, then that is great ..


I followed no ones design. Just used basic principles .. common sense

I am planning a second FT and the intention is to use the two swirls separately, for the two FTs.....
.

How do you know it captures 99% of the solids.

If you can truly get such a good capture rate you should be telling the guys at Cornell how to do it.

The conclusions in this paper indicate that the Radial Flow Settler is better at removing solids compared with the Swirl at the same loading rates. Based on this I would go with the Radial Flow Settler/RFF.

http://integrated-aqua.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Radial_Flow_Settler_Whitepaper.pdf

You may be missing one issue, and this is two bungs aren't enough. If it were, people wouldn't need to cut the top out of the barrel to install the drain bulkhead connector

That paper also indicates that if BuiDoi can get 99% removal rate then what ever he is doing is way better than what anyone else has claimed.

Daydream Doodling

All inspiration and original ideas are someone else's.
All errors are mine.
Would it work more efficiently than a standard RFF or swirl?

There is a risk that the downward pointing inlets to the RFF will resuspend the solids.

The design of an inlet pointing up with a larger screen to direct flow down is one that is well thought out. It works and is simple to construct.

If you are going to make your system more complicated by adding solids removal components why also make it more difficult to build?

Visual solids as compared to.dissolved solids.. (or rather super fines)

I think there is likely a big difference with larger systems. Ie. Much larger flow rates.. my FT would hold a bit under 1000L and the pump is (I think) 2000L/h

My estimate of 99% is likely a bit subjective and based on the amount of muck in the first swirl and that in the second and the total absence of anything in the sump.
Yes, there is a canister filter in the line back to the FT, and that shows little sign of needing a clean..
I have little doubt that a larger system would need a proportional increase in tank size, and that if one is seriously into RAS type production, then more professional filters might be chosen.

I wonder if the design that I used is helping performance.. with the inlet and outlets in the middle of the tank and needing plumbing to get flows to the top... it means that this plumbing disturbs and slows the swirl.. allowing. Better precipitation..
..
.

Plus one to the thought that it would blast solids back into suspension..
And if you incline the ends to other that vertical, then it will be a swirl..

Two thoughts for changes..

First - replace the 90deg with 45deg, and rather than pointing down and disturbing the existing solids, angle at say. 20deg to horizontal, thus squirting at the wall, but slightly down, to start the solids in that direction

If you want to go with the basic design shown, and go more radial, you could retain the central inlet.. fit an end cap.. cut vertical slots all around, so the water squirts out horizontally, and then fit a deep cone over that, to encourage the downwards flow..

With your concept, you can make that inlet stand pipe removable and thus you can experiment with options..
Ie convert from swirl to radial..

The skectch is likely not proportional, and the outlet should be as large as possible, and I would just use a 90deg pointing up, so the outflow spills over the open mouth..
Then, you should raise the inflow stand pipe to perhaps 3/4 of the water depth..

The bottom line is that it has to work, provided the flow rate is proportional to the container size..

I must say that I wish there were larger drums of that shape.. how good would that be ..
..
.peter

How would you do a PIP (pipe in pipe) fitting at the bottom of the cone?

Here's one Boss.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24533&hilit=Swede#p500279

Thanks Guys.

Buidoi Wrote, ‘Likely not proportional’

I have studied art at the RA in London, The Sorbonne in Paris and in Florence. One thing I have learnt from my visits to their mens restrooms is that art never reflects reality!

This was my attempt at a combined RFF and Swirl.

The removable ‘T” on the outlet (blocked at one end) is to allow an easy fixing point for the plastic disk. Push fit (removable) for cleaning.

Stuart your point is well made.
However you say,”may”
Shamelessly stealing Buidoi idea.
If we used a smoother radius bend angled down at say 19.5*.
Would it reduce the likely hood of resuspension?
This creates the swirl or, ‘tea cup’ effect
Suspended solids are thus flowing down on the outside.
Cleaner water rises in the centre.
A reversal of water flow in a traditional RFF
When it hits the baffle (plastic disk) it is pushed to the outside and gets a second chance at descending.

Brian; PIP. I have no idea! I woke up at that point!
Buidoi Consider; Water cooler bottles! IMHO ideal for the smaller, more compact, Bijou style system!

They work on completely different principles. A RFF works on reducing water velocity to allow settling. A swirl filter works on having a rotating current and using the centrifugal forces to separate the solids from the main flow and then allowing them to settle.

The two components have been well studied and the RFF consistently gets better results. Better solids separation, lower energy use and much easier to design and install. Duidoi's assertion that SFs are not harder to build and install doesn't match assessments made by professionals in the AQ industry. SFs are regularly reported as being hard to configure and once configured prone to failure if flow changes. RFFs on the other hand can be designed very easily and over engineered very simply with minimal extra cost. Makes for a simple build and a reliable component.

Like I said if you are going to make your system more complicated by adding a solids separator why add one that doesn't work as well, requires a higher head to operate and is not as reliable? The only reasons I can think to do this is to be different or to get a sense of accomplishment from being able to manage a more complicated system.